Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= * Category talk:Philosophical movements * Category talk:Philosophy * Category talk:Mirror universe individuals * Category talk:Energy * Category talk:Explosives * Category talk:Military personnel * Category talk:Slang * Category talk:Terminology =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Starship classes move Move all Category:Starship classes to Category:Spacecraft classes, or if we feel so inclined, "spacecraft types" vs. "classes." This applies to the subcategories, and is based on changes implemented at Category talk:Spacecraft. This move is based on the analysis that not all vessel classes listed in "starship classes" are starship classes... While making this move, it would probably be a good idea to create a new subcategory for Category:Federation starship classes, nay, Category:Federation spacecraft classes called Category:Federation shuttle classes (or "types") as there are several. --Alan 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) :I don't see a problem creating separate classes for spacecraft classes and types. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary, though. "Spacecraft classes" doesn't sound very good, though... maybe "ship classes"? Eh, then I'd guess we'd have to include non-starfaring ships. Anyway, I support the cat move and creation of the sub-cat. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Food categories We have one existing example of further splitting up the Category:Earth foods with Category:Earth herbs and spices. I suggest some more categories here, like Category:Earth soups including soups,bouillons,broths and stews and Category:Earth pastry for all those cookies,cakes etc. Kennelly 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :I'm not sure a fine-grained categorization as this would be necessary. We'd end up with a bunch of subcategories with only 5-10 items, fast. -- Cid Highwind 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Tiburonians Right now, Tiburonians are all listed under 'Individuals'. I suggest a specific sub-category for them. I know there are only three canonically appearing Tiburonians, but even other limited species such as Aquans have a category. -- Jayunderscorezero :Just as a note, our current cutoff for a species category has been six named individuals (or five named individuals and a number of unnamed members). -- Renegade54 05:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC) ::Ah, I wasn't aware of that; thanks. --Jayunderscorezero 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC) :::See section "Species categories" below. I think it makes sense to have a category for every named species, no matter how many named individuals exist. -- Cid Highwind 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Homeworlds I'm not so much into the whole category thing, but I was surprised that no Category: Homeworlds exists as of yet, it seems extremely useful, and was also suggested as part of several complex "category tree" suggestions here. Anyway, my rationale: this would most logically be implemented as a subcategory of Category:Planets and I guess there would be more than enough candidates for the category. (in fact, I'm volunteering myself to boldly go seeking out homeworlds on MA and tagging them as such). Capricorn 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :I'm not totally convinced of this as yet... Perhaps coming up with a list and putting it on your userpage or as a subpage of such might help give an idea of the actual numbers? If it does pass, I would agree to it being a subcategory, and would suggest that it replace the planet category on the article. -- Sulfur 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ::If that category replaces Category:Planets on homeworld pages, that would break Planets (formerly a list article listing all planets by name, now a redirect to the planet category which is still supposed to have the same functionality). Alternatives would be making the suggested category an additional one (with all the problems of duplicate categorization we already discussed elsewhere), or starting this as a list of homeworlds on Homeworlds (which, I just found that out by previewing this comment, already exists. Wow). -- Cid Highwind 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Wouldn't your worries about breaking functionality be more or less solved just simply by making "homeworlds" a subcategory? I agree that double classification is messy, which is why some more or less arbitrary lists on MA like First planets, Planets in the Delphic Expanse, Romulan planets, etc would not be good subcategories, but there are definatly subcategories that could work. For example, if next to a "homeworld" subcategory you add subcategories for "colonies" and "uninhabited planets", there (baring perhaps some odd cases) would be zero overlap, and the list would not only not lose functionality, but actualy gain some, as they are now categorised by some very basic and very usefull key characteristics. (note that this is not an expansion of the proposal, but rather a weird attempt at trying to explain my vision of how this could enhance MA). On a sidenote, thanks for pointing out the Homeworlds page, can't believe I missed that while researching this, but it will make for the perfect consolidation should this category not be created :). And sulfur, I guess that page will adress your doubts about the numbers too. -- Capricorn 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC) ::I was more thinking about the alphabetical list of all planets that now exists. What, if someone is looking for a planet he only knows part of the name of? Right now, it would be one lookup in the central "planets" list - then, it would be a lookup in 3-4 lists. Also, part of my "breaking functionality" concern was regarding the possible use of DPLs (see: Forum:DPL extension to generate lists, I even used the "planets" category there as an example). Maybe there's a way to make sense of a categorization as both "planet" and "homeworld", but I'm not sure of that at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Species categories I've seen several references to some minimum number of members a species has to have to get a category. I think this might actually be the reversal of a previous suggestion here, a blanket allowance for all species categories with more than X members. Thinking about it, it actually makes sense for a proper "categorization" to either have all possible species categories, or none at all. Even if some species only has one known member, that member would still be properly categorized as "species X" - whether other articles in that category exist or not. -- Cid Highwind 15:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC) : So then the stragglers, those without a known species would be left under Category:Individuals or are we going to include "X individual's species" as a category too? I'm not too keen on that, but don't have anything against lifting the limitations you speak of. --Alan del Beccio 10:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Personally, I think those might best be left under "Individuals". I know we already have at least one "PLANET native" category, but "NAME's species" seems a little too random to build a category on. -- Cid Highwind 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC) : Suits me. --Alan del Beccio 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ::I haven't decided if I support this idea or not,(so I need more information) but if a species only has a single member, isn't having a category for a species of one redundant, especially if that species has an article? We also have articles such as Kelemane's species where the name was not established. Would that have a category as well? 31dot 00:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC) :::It wouldn't be redundant, because people might search from either end of the option. They might search from the character, or they might search from the species. Its justifiable that they hit a result either way. Remember, this isn't a book, thats read from beginning to end, and duplicated sections become difficult to read. Its a wiki, and any person who searches for something, and doesn't find any information (especially if we did have that information on the site, just not categorized properly) on that subject... we've failed. Are we concerned with the bandwidth of having a few extra pages of data?Hossrex 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC) ::::OK, I'm convinced. Your answer makes sense to me. I would wonder where and how the concept of a 'cutoff' came about in the first place, but this sounds like a good idea. 31dot 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Category:Religious leaders Based on my examples in the nomination for the Category:Religion figures, I think what I really meant for that category to be was for feared or revered gods, and prophets, angels, and other Biblical (or related text) figures, not Kai Winn or Jimmy Swaggert. I think something like Category:Religious leaders might be a good division point. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Category:Starfleet Academy courses Another misunderstood nomination was Category:Academic disciplines; initially created to house all the "I took X course at Starfleet Academy" references. Well, I don't think it quite turned out right, as a course is not necessarily a discipline, per se. So I'd link to weed out all the courses, and maybe other remedial training and exercise references (not subjects, eg Sun Tsu, Korrd), most listed at Starfleet Academy and separate them from the aforementioned category. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Category:Dominion Collection area for various Dominion related topics, akin to Category:Federation. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Category:Mathematics There are several mathematical references used throughout. This would be the best way to consolidate them all. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Security and identification technology Two categories, similar topic: I've noticed several articles, many uncategorized, all on a related topic, including thumbscan, retinal scan, identification card, identity tape, authorization code, security clearance, ration card, transport card, transit pass, chess code, and I'm sure there are others. Since these are all security related concepts, perhaps broaden this idea and make identification a sub-category of a larger Security technology, for stuff like listening devices and so forth. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Events, missions, projects and expeditions We have several events, missions, projects and expeditions, but I cannot think of a unilateral term to encompass them all. Here is the list, compiled from : Arias Expedition, Axanar Peace Mission, Bolian Operation, Fornax Disaster, Great Diaspora, Operation Lovely Angel, Operation Retrieve, Operation Watson, Pathfinder Project, Particle Fountain Project, shakedown cruise, Vulcan reunification, Vulcanian expedition, Xindi reunification. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) :Good call, but I have no idea on a single name, either. Maybe the items you list are still too diverse to be listed under one category? "Mission" could probably encompass all those "Operations", but "Project"? Not sure... -- Cid Highwind 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Shapeshifting Species To be based on Shapeshifting species. It is a fairly common phenomenon in Trek, with about 14 species listed on that page. – Cleanse 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Production POV categories Production staff subs I think we should branch off Category:Production staff into further sub-categories. We already have Category:Composers, Category:Directors, Category:ILM production staff, and Category:Writers; I think we should also have Category:Cinematographers, Category:Editors (for film and assistant film editors only), Category:Producers, and Category:Designers (for production, set and costume designers). Another good one to have would be Category:Makeup staff (or something similar) for makeup artists and designers and hairstylists. There certainly are enough articles to substantiate each category. What do ya'll think? --From Andoria with Love 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) *'Support', but don't forget you have sound editors as well as film editors, etc. I think we'll need to go through all the categories on somewhere like IMDb and make a list of where in our category system each would fit best, creating new cats as required. -- Renegade54 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) :*Actually, I think we should rename the category Category:Film editors to limit it to those types of editors. Also, I wouldn't want people to start adding editors of books and magazines to it. ;) --From Andoria with Love 02:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Maintenance categories Sub-categories for Category:Memory Alpha images Locations *Category:Memory Alpha images (locations), for images of compartments aboard starships and space stations like the Image:NX Sickbay.jpg, also for images like Image:RuraPentheMine2293.jpg, which could possibly be put under Category: Memory Alpha images (planets), but not really. Deevolution 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) : Okay, but in addition, what if we went with Category: Memory Alpha images (landscapes) for planet-side matte images, etc...--Alan 08:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC) ::Category: Memory Alpha images (exteriors) and Category: Memory Alpha images (interiors)? That way we can do space scenery as well? Deevolution 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Policies and Guidelines Category:Memory Alpha policies and Category:Memory Alpha guidelines, to better separate one from the other. Could either be created as sub-categories to Category:Memory Alpha policies and guidelines, or completely replace that category. Separating those two (Policy:"must" vs. Guideline:"should") would be a first step to address the issue of over-regulation that has been brought up several times in the past. -- Cid Highwind 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC) :I like the idea, especially as a pair of subcats. -- Sulfur 16:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)